Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Burka ban

1…9798100102103…138

Comments

  • #2972
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    I'm not sure exactly how you reconcile the above statement with this one
    Reasons of course do matter. I think Ireland for example is evolving away from a morality based on Catholic dogma into one where egalitarianism is hugely important and discrimination of the grounds of gender or sexual orientation * have become unacceptable.
    * why not include religion here? Most concepts of egalitarianism include this no?
    smacl wrote: »
    Islam, burkas and all, is not trusted as it is seen as essentially misogynistic and homophobic, with some striking parallels to Irish Catholicism in the latter half of the last century.

    Homophobism and Misogynism are not to be tolerated, absolutely whole heartedly agree.

    Catholic doctrine says very similar things about homosexuality, and has a disdain for women too. Are we to ban all things Catholic from the public domain?
    smacl wrote: »
    Until such time as we see the 'a la carte' Muslim that is equally intolerant of discrimination of the grounds of gender or sexual orientation, I imagine this will remain the case.
    Ignorance of these people is hardly grounds for banning anything. Perhaps you should be more tolerant and speak to Muslims that don't have extreme views, I know a few personally. I don't personally know any extremists (that I'm aware of).

    http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/london-news/british-muslims-stage-anti-isis-protest-march-in-london/9163.article
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamic-scholar-tells-british-muslims-to-march-for-peace-to-show-they-dont-quietly-condone-terrorism-10349178.html

    Surely it would be deeply misguided to ascribe extremist beliefs to the majority of Muslims?


  • #2973
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I'd go down the education route , we take our freedoms for granted however if increasing numbers of people are raised that do not respect rights like freedom of religion , that women have equal rights etc. Then a robust curriculum ought to be developed to reinforce this. Otherwise limiting migration from Islamic countries will become popular. The other alternative is to say screw it once I can live in a white middleclass neighbourhood then who cares? Seems to be the Swedish approach.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #2974
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Homophobism and Misogynism are not to be tolerated, absolutely whole heartedly agree.

    Catholic doctrine says very similar things about homosexuality, and has a disdain for women too. Are we to ban all things Catholic from the public domain?
    Who's talking about banning all things from any religion?
    Ignorance of these people is hardly grounds for banning anything. Perhaps you should be more tolerant and speak to Muslims that don't have extreme views, I know a few personally. I don't personally know any extremists (that I'm aware of).

    http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/london-news/british-muslims-stage-anti-isis-protest-march-in-london/9163.article
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/islamic-scholar-tells-british-muslims-to-march-for-peace-to-show-they-dont-quietly-condone-terrorism-10349178.html

    Surely it would be deeply misguided to ascribe extremist beliefs to the majority of Muslims?
    How did you go from what Smacl wrote to talking about extremism?


  • #2975
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm not asking you to repeat yourself unless you actually said yes I believe this is true, or no I do not believe this is true, and I missed it? If you don't want to answer the question that's fine too, but pretending you have is a bit disingenuous...

    What is disingenuous is asking a redundant question that the poster already answered in order to derail the thread and disrupt discussion.


  • #2976
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Who's talking about banning all things from any religion?

    Well smacl effectively equated homophobism and misogynism with Islam, and used that as a basis for not trusting Islam. Using this as grounds for an argument for a Burka Ban. Whilst glossing over the similar doctrine of the Catholic religion. Is it feasible to use those exact same grounds to call for a ban on the wearing of crucifixes?
    smacl wrote: »
    Islam, burkas and all, is not trusted as it is seen as essentially misogynistic and homophobic, with some striking parallels to Irish Catholicism in the latter half of the last century.

    One rule for one, not applied to another doesn't seem very egalitarian to me.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    How did you go from what Smacl wrote to talking about extremism?

    Pretty simple steps. They say they see no moderates.
    smacl wrote: »
    Until such time as we see the 'a la carte' Muslim that is equally intolerant of discrimination of the grounds of gender or sexual orientation, I imagine this will remain the case.


  • Advertisement
  • #2977
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well smacl effectively equated homophobism and misogynism with Islam, and used that as a basis for not trusting Islam. Using this as grounds for an argument for a Burka Ban. Whilst glossing over the similar doctrine of the Catholic religion. Is it feasible to use those exact same grounds to call for a ban on the wearing of crucifixes?
    He did?
    My understanding of his post was, that he was saying that Islam is very comparable to how Catholicism used to be and because of this people aren't going to trust it.
    Which is a fair point.
    Pretty simple steps. They say they see no moderates.
    He said that were no "a la cartes", not that there were no moderates.


  • #2978
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    He did?
    My understanding of his post was, that he was saying that Islam is very comparable to how Catholicism used to be and because of this people aren't going to trust it.
    Which is a fair point.

    The thread title is about banning items. I assumed that we were talking about reasons that might justify the removal of basic human rights from individuals and not just offering a dialogue on individual religion's issues with our modern society.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    He said that were no "a la cartes", not that there were no moderates.

    I concede there may be a semantic difference and ask you offer a suitable description of the two groups.


  • #2979
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I concede there may be a semantic difference and ask you offer a suitable description of the two groups.
    A la carte: Follows few or none of the beliefs of a religion.
    Doesn't pray or go to mass.
    But likes to be part of the group and participates in the special occasions.

    Moderate: Follows most if not all of the beliefs of the religion. Prays and goes to mass.

    Extremist: Using violence

    Obviously the above list is only a rough guideline.


  • #2980
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I guess I'm okay with those definitions, substitute 'A la Carte' into my previous post in place of moderate and lets get back to discussing the removal of people's right to choose something to wear.

    In future I'll be a bit more pedantic and exact, I'd appreciate similar so that we don't have semantic issues.

    also, in case you missed my post here


  • #2981
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    also, in case you missed my post here
    I was ignoring it because I felt addressing it could take the thread off topic.
    In relation to the Burqa though, I don't think seeing increased numbers of women wearing it is going to lead to people seeing it differently or accepting it.
    I think the opposite would happen and this seems to be born out by experiences in other European countries.


  • Advertisement
  • #2982
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I was ignoring it because I felt addressing it could take the thread off topic.
    In relation to the Burqa though, I don't think seeing increased numbers of women wearing it is going to lead to people seeing it differently or accepting it.
    I think the opposite would happen and this seems to be born out by experiences in other European countries.

    But would you argue against the line of thinking that normalising it by seeing it worn would de-stigmatise it? That's all I've asked.


  • #2983
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But would you argue against the line of thinking that normalising it by seeing it worn would de-stigmatise it?
    Yes.


  • #2984
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Yes.

    Okay. Well I don't really know what else we can talk about on that point.

    I think that flies in the face of reason and evidence, but sure that's it.


  • #2985
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The thread title is about banning items. I assumed that we were talking about reasons that might justify the removal of basic human rights from individuals and not just offering a dialogue on individual religion's issues with our modern society.

    How is stopping someone from being oppressed taking away a human right? Perhaps you mean taking away the right of a woman's husband/brothers/parents/uncles ability to force oppression on her is taking away their human rights?


  • #2986
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think that flies in the face of reason and evidence, but sure that's it.
    Look at all the European countries that have brought in restrictions on full face veils as the prevalence has increased.
    Can you show public support increasing, with the increased wearing in public of the Burqa, in any European country?


  • #2987
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    How is stopping someone from being oppressed taking away a human right? Perhaps you mean taking away the right of a woman's husband/brothers/parents/uncles ability to force oppression on her is taking away their human rights?

    You are not allowing a woman who might choose to wear the burka exercise that right. That is oppressive is it not?
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Look at all the European countries that have brought in restrictions on full face veils as the prevalence has increased.
    Can you show public support increasing, with the increased wearing in public of the Burqa, in any European country?

    No I can't. Plainly enough. I'm not supporting Burka wearing. I'm just anti-banning clothing!

    I said that the de-stigmatisation of cross dressing occurred as people became more and more familiar with people cross dressing. The interactions that individuals had would have lead to a normalisation of the cross-dressing 'culture'. These experiences over time result in an acceptance into the mainstream.

    You said otherwise.

    Following my train of thought for a second, and being reflective; If my train of thought is correct, do you think that if we'd banned cross dressing, as an affront to our culture before that normalisation, could the same be said? Would the de-stigmatisation have occurred?


  • #2988
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Following my train of thought for a second, and being reflective; If my train of thought is correct, do you think that if we'd banned cross dressing, as an affront to our culture before that normalisation, could the same be said? Would the de-stigmatisation have occurred?

    Your train of thought is incorrect, and your straw man that was previously wearing PJs has now added a skirt to his wardrobe. We didn't ban cross dressing because even if a few fuddy duddies might at some level have been uncomfortable with it, it didn't exactly symbolise oppressive behaviour in the minds of the public at large. In fact, if you look at the history of theatre and burlesque, cross dressing in one form or another has been acceptable to most people for a very long time. You really need to look at an item of clothing that has given risen to concern, such as the sash perhaps in some parts of the North, and see how that has been addressed.


  • #2989
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Please expand upon
    1 - How my train of thought is incorrect.
    2 - How my points are strawmen
    3 - How the fact that cross dressing has been acceptable for a long time changes anything. See the bolded 'before' in the last post you've quoted. That's pretty important.

    You've asserted these, but nothing else.


  • #2990
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    You are not allowing a woman who might choose to wear the burka exercise that right. That is oppressive is it not?

    As if anyone would voluntarily wear an item of clothing that makes them stifilingly hot and drastically diminishes their senses and awareness if it wasn't for the threat of violence (physical or psychological) from their family/societal-group or because they'd been indoctrinated/brainwashed by their religion and culture.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not supporting Burka wearing.

    From the rest of what you say it doesn't seem that way.


  • #2991
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    As if anyone would voluntarily wear an item of clothing that makes them stifilingly hot and drastically diminishes their senses and awareness if it wasn't for the threat of violence (physical or psychological) from their family/societal-group or because they'd been indoctrinated/brainwashed by their religion and culture.
    That's fine to have as an opinion.
    It would require some proving to present as a fact.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    From the rest of what you say it doesn't seem that way.
    Because I'm interested in preserving personal freedoms?


  • Advertisement
  • #2992
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    No I can't. Plainly enough. I'm not supporting Burka wearing. I'm just anti-banning clothing!
    So you can't support you're argument that "normalising it by seeing it worn would de-stigmatise it"?

    Increasing exposure to people seeing cross-dressers lead to an increase in the public's acceptance of it.
    On the other hand, increasing exposure to women wearing the Burka has lead to an increase in the public's resistance to it to the point that it is restricted/banned.
    The public reacted differently to cross-dressers as opposed to women who cover their faces with veils, because their opposition is based on fundamentally different reasons.
    As such an comparisons are flawed.


  • #2993
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    So you can't support you're argument that "normalising it by seeing it worn would de-stigmatise it"?

    That argument was discussing the ramifications of cross dressing. You told me that you didn't believe that the normalisation of cross dressing in our culture had no factor on the de-stigmatisation of the alternative culture.

    We might have wires crossed somewhere here.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Increasing exposure to people seeing cross-dressers lead to an increase in the public's acceptance of it.
    Now you change your mind on this
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    On the other hand, increasing exposure to women wearing the Burka has lead to an increase in the public's resistance to it to the point that it is restricted/banned.
    Some serious logical gaps jumped through there. I'd argue very plainly and simply that that's an inference that you're not entitled to make there. You'd need to point out how on earth people's exposure to the Burka itself (the article of clothing) has caused them to resent it. Not the religious aspect. This flies in the face of the homophobism, mysogyinism and oppression arguments presented previously.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    The public reacted differently to cross-dressers as opposed to women who cover their faces with veils, because their opposition is based on fundamentally different reasons.
    As such an comparisons are flawed.

    Again, an incredible assertion to raise, especially in the face of the very reason we're having this conversation. That you suggested it was incredibly intolerant of people to choose to wear a Burka in the western world. Can the same not have been said of those very first people to begin cross dressing?


  • #2994
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Please expand upon
    1 - How my train of thought is incorrect.
    2 - How my points are strawmen
    3 - How the fact that cross dressing has been acceptable for a long time changes anything. See the bolded 'before' in the last post you've quoted. That's pretty important.

    You've asserted these, but nothing else.

    Your train of though is incorrect because you're making your comparison based solely on clothing rather than what that clothing symbolises. The burqa to many people symbolises systematic oppression of women, and a religion that many people fear in its more extreme expressions and the way it is expanding across Europe. Men wearing dresses and lipstick bear no relation to this, and hence bringing them into the debate is a straw man. The treatment of Jews by Nazis in the second world war also has no bearing on this debate and is another strawman. You might as well have a go at people wearing imperial stormtrooper outfits at fancy dress parties for all the relevance it has here.

    You seem to be struggling to understand why people across Europe have concerns regarding the burka in terms of what it symbolises on the one hand, and its effects on the other. Restricting your arguments to the garment itself and then going on to make other clothing based comparisons misses the point of the debate entirely.


  • #2995
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I will do my best to keep this short.
    smacl wrote: »
    Your train of though is incorrect because you're making your comparison based solely on clothing rather than what that clothing symbolises.
    Potentially true. Who gets to decide what clothing symbolises what?
    smacl wrote: »
    The burqa to many people symbolises systematic oppression of women, and a religion that many people fear in its more extreme expressions and the way it is expanding across Europe.
    And to other people, it is just a garment. Again, no objectivity.
    smacl wrote: »
    Men wearing dresses and lipstick bear no relation to this, and hence bringing them into the debate is a straw man.
    The discussion regarding cross dressing is specifically regarding a post suggesting that not subscribing to cultural norms is intolerant. I'm confused as to how non-conformism is now 'intolerance'.
    smacl wrote: »
    The treatment of Jews by Nazis in the second world war also has no bearing on this debate and is another strawman.
    We discussed clothing that symbolise oppression. I would find no difficult in classing the Auschwitz uniforms as just this. Would you not agree?
    smacl wrote: »
    You might as well have a go at people wearing imperial stormtrooper outfits at fancy dress parties for all the relevance it has here.
    I have done! We have people suggesting a valid reason for banning a burka may be that it makes communication difficult. This reasoning, fairly applied to all, would also result in banning costume worn in public.
    smacl wrote: »
    You seem to be struggling to understand why people across Europe have concerns regarding the burka in terms of what it symbolises on the one hand, and its effects on the other. Restricting your arguments to the garment itself and then going on to make other clothing based comparisons misses the point of the debate entirely.
    No, I am very aware. I don't however believe that the restriction of the right of freedom of expression is a fair or tangible way to fight the issue. What good is it to remove symbols? We must remove the oppression. Scratching at the surface of a problem won't make it go away. Hence my question regarding the lack of calls to ban make up, though make up is often used by victims of domestic abuse to cover up that abuse. We know that banning make up won't stop the abuse, why do we think that banning burkas might prevent oppression?
    -
    Apologies, I didn't manage to keep it short.


  • #2996
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Holy crap, the straw man in PJs and a skirt is now wearing lippy. You're not constructing an argument, you're building scarecrow! :pac:


  • #2997
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    Holy crap, the straw man in PJs and a skirt is now wearing lippy. You're not constructing an argument, you're building scarecrow! :pac:

    Frustrating enough. Again a 'strawman' assertion without any reasoning.

    How about trying to answer either of these posts? Or addressing any of the points at all that have been raised?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96051863&postcount=2899

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96063691&postcount=2925


  • #2998
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,248 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    That argument was discussing the ramifications of cross dressing. You told me that you didn't believe that the normalisation of cross dressing in our culture had no factor on the de-stigmatisation of the alternative culture.

    We might have wires crossed somewhere here.
    At this stage I'm not going to address your points on cross-dressing any further.
    The public non-acceptance/acceptance of Burqa wearers/Cross-dressers are based on fundamentally different reasons and as such comparisons are flawed.
    I've already explained this before in the thread.
    If you can show people don't accept the Burqa for the exact same reason they didn't accept cross dressers then you'd have a point.
    Now you change your mind on this
    I never said exposure to something is the reason for the acceptance.
    It's the continuous challenging of your beliefs that does this.


  • #2999
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's fine to have as an opinion.
    It would require some proving to present as a fact.

    So you think women who are forced to wear the burka aren't being oppressed. Interesting.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because I'm interested in preserving personal freedoms?

    Because I doubt you give a flying crap about their personal freedoms, you seem to be pursuing the devils advocate role just for the sake of contrarianism.


  • #3000
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    So you think women who are forced to wear the burka aren't being oppressed. Interesting.
    I think more likely he's pointing out that the notion that someone wouldn't wear uncomfortable garments if it wasn't for the threat of violence from someone in their family/societal-group or because they'd been indoctrinated or brainwashed by their religion and culture bears the need of proof before being presented as a fact.
    How does that notion fit in with high heels and g strings as a matter of interest? They're apparently also almost intolerably uncomfortable, yet people wear them without being threatened, indoctrinated or brainwashed. Heck, some people even wear them despite being threatened with violence.
    Come to think of it, some people wear burqas despite being subjected to violence. Hmm.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Because I doubt you give a flying crap about their personal freedoms, you seem to be pursuing the devils advocate role just for the sake of contrarianism.
    Commenting on a posters motivation (especially without any evidence) seems to me to be addressing the poster rather than the post. Surely his argument should be considered on its own merits, rather than on your own prejudicial assumptions about his motivations?


  • Advertisement
  • #3001
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Commenting on a posters motivation (especially without any evidence) seems to me to be addressing the poster rather than the post. Surely his argument should be considered on its own merits, rather than on your own prejudicial assumptions about his motivations?

    And normally I'd do that but after page after page of goalposts being shifted around and strawman arguments you get to wondering...


Advertisement